All,Starting point -- I have three bodies: 5Dmk3, 5Dmk2, and a 30D, which I rarely use. I do this for a living.

I see no new bodies coming soon and don't like the sound of (and the reviews of) the 6D. My desire to get more flexibility and back-up in my bodies was accelerated yesterday when I discovered that my 5Dmk2 shoe doesn't work! I have an evening charity event I am shooting Saturday night and was testing everything. There are few rental opportunities in my area but I was lucky to find a mk2 I can rent for flash backup.

I am interested in opinions of the trade-offs for a third FF body between another Mk2, a 1DIIIs, and I guess I'd have to consider another (used?) 5Dmk3.

I should say I am disappointed with the focus ability of the Mk3 in certain conditions so am leery of adding another Mk3. Canon can't duplicate the conditions in which I see difficulties in their repair facilities; Canon and I have gone around and around on this already. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the variability of the Mk3 bodies.

The 1DmkIIIs would be used for product work, food, landscape, portraits, architecture, tripod work in general, when I have the luxury of lower ISO. At or lower than 400 is my guess, and often using lighting. I think I would want to shoot high-speed-sync in some real estate or architectural work to balance windows (HDR still problematic for this in some conditions.) Further, I read that the skin tones are good on this sensor. Would shoot this body tethered a lot.

Did I read about focus problems on some of these?

I *don't* get asked to shoot sports.

I get the "old technology" epithet, but we used to buy a couple of used Hasselblads and their lenses and use those for YEARS in billing good day rates. And in a couple of years there may be another Canon to consider. I have to say that the lack of extra DR in the Mk3's low ISOs (over the Mk2) was a big disappointment.

This sounds like a lot of complaining but I am willing to work with the gear as it is... just find the right mix for me. I have never used a 1D.

I have a 1Dmk3 its a later model so doesnt suffer from the AF issuecheck on line there is a serial number range of affected cameras so when buying you can check thisAF on mine is fantastic, only bettered by the 5Dmk3

iso 1600 is great and even iso 3200 is probably pretty close to the 5Dmk2its only 10MP and 1.3 crop so if you shot a full frame and cropped the 1.3 you would basically have the samenumber of pixels there isnt any real reach benefit to be had

however 100% VF and built in blindThe AF flat out stomps anything the 5Dmk2 or lower can do and by the sounds of things the 6D too which sound pretty much like a rehash of the 5dMk2 AFtons of customisationstank like builddual card slotsfull range of bracketing

I guess the big question is how cheap can you get one? typically i find sellers are asking unrealistic prices for any used 1D bodies which are now I would say if you can get one in the right serial number range for under $1000 with lowish shutter count, go for itI'll never sell mine because its my dirty workhorse I take it and my 24-105 into places most people cant believe you would take a camera but to be honest a 1series and weather sealed L glass is about the only equipment that can stand the.

I used a 1Ds3 for years, and still have it as a backup. It has always been a stellar performer for me, and its low iso offers some of the nicest files I've seen. It sounds like you know its limitations already, it is not the highest of iso kings, and its buffer fills quick with its 5 fps if you are shooting RAW, but it really does allow for great captures, as well as everything else that goes along with the 1D family.

Do you see better images at the lowest ISOs in studio lighting of table tops, food, architecture, etc.? No need for buffer and motor drive speed or even AF. Use it with my TSE lenses, for example. I has assumed I would look for the full-frame.

Thanks for the tip about serial number lists. I am not at that stage of research yet. Yeah, costs of advertised cameras seemed high.

Appreciate the feedback. Any more users to comment on the DR, file characteristics?

I find it odd that the OP mentions being disappointment with the 5D mkIII's auto focus system (which is supposed to be really good- I haven't used it), but then says his plan is to use the camera on a tripod/ studio style photography where AF isn't as important. Am I missing something?

I've thrown in my vote here and there in CR discussions about unit variability. My particular copy focuses slowly or doesn't focus (mashing the shutter screaming "Shoot, damn it" in my head.) I just believe it's due to variability in the bodies. Canon could not reproduce the issue, which is not surprising because where it nearly cost me a client was a dark-background dress rehearsal: stage lighting made plenty of contrast, though, and the lens was the 70-200 f2.8L Series Two.

I shot an event last night under function room lighting and although better than my 5Dmk2 under the same lighting there was still a hesitation locking in with either the Sigma 35mm f1.4 (the new one) and my 85mm f1.8. I am debating a next body purchase (hence this thread).

In response to the question about my AF "concern" but why be concerned in studio shooting, etc.,

1. In studio or product work anywhere I want more dynamic range so I got the impression from threads here the 1DIIIs offered more DR at low ISOs. I was annoyed when I found that the Mk3 didn't improve the DR from my Mk2 at low ISO settings.

2. For focus in studio or static setups: I would shoot this tethered and double check everything in Live View, especially with tilt and shift corrections. I used to spend time under a dark cloth at the back of a 4x5 in my studio so our current setup for this kind of work is MUCH more fun. But there's no need for fancy auto focus on tabletop product work. Ditto, really, landscape on a tripod.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread report on the low-ISO dynamic range comparison: 1Dmk3s vs. 5Dmk3. Anyone have both and able to confirm the earlier camera is better? Enough to buy the older tech just for that specialized benefit?

I'd buy a 6D. I'm not sure what you heard that was bad about it. AF is consistent, its a good camera for a low price. Certainly, a 1DsIII is excellent, but relatively expensive, and has the same flash shoe which can have the same issue.

The DR of the 6D didn't get reviewed as better than the 5Dmk3 at low ISO. I'd have to add the cost of lots of SD cards. So I wrote it off for my needs. I have Mk2 and Mk3, so I'm looking for something different. I really want more DR.

I've been using a 5Dmk3 since last April. I was using a 5Dmk2 and 1Ds mk2 before it. The 5D3 does not does not focus as well as the 1Ds2 in poor light and it really doesn't meter flash well at all.

While there are many things I love about the 5D3, I needed a camera I could rely on for low lit events and general on cam flash work so I sold my 5D2 and 1Ds2 and bought a 1Ds3 as a second camera. While it doesn't have all the AF points of the 5D3, it is more accurate in poor light. It is very accurate with E-TTL flash where I find the 5D3 to be very random. Spot metering at all AF points is quite awesome too.

I picked the 1Ds3 up for $2200 a month or two ago. I think it is a way better deal than the 6D if you don't need video. Pretty sure I'd take it over the 5D3 also.

IMO the only drawback to the 1Ds3 is ISO performance. Even at 1600 it leave a lot to be desired. But I think at 1600 what it lacks in image detail is better than a wildly missed focused or overly blown flash shot.

My 1Ds MkIII is used a lot for birds (herons and egrets) in flight series...I can routinely capture 5-6 in a row, and, about 20% of the time, it'll fill the buffer with all in focus, providing, I do my part.Noise...I will not go to ISO 800 or above.

Logged

The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever. A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.http://1x.com/member/chauncey43

I recently sold my 1Ds3 for the 1DX. The 1Ds3 I had suffered from the focus issues and had to go back to Canon several times for parts replacements (sub mirror etc...) but eventually was much better in the end. It still had a lower hit rate than my other bodies (1D2, 1D4) but it was due to a focus shift and not due to slow focus. I was never really happy with shooting f/4 or faster with that camera since you could not rely on it to hit the focus perfectly more than 60% of the time. For f/8 and slower shooting it was very good with excellent low ISO results (iso 400 and lower). Low light focusing was never an issue with or without flash (with and without focus assist).

I would not hesitate to buy another 1Ds3 for f/8 and slower studio work, but I would not shoot a wedding with one due to the f/4 and faster focus shifts I experienced. Shooting with an 85L at f/1.2 was impossible unless you took about 1000 shots to get one good one.